Hey, O'Bruadair

Bbbob · Sergeant Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 12

You said this in a previous post:

"The question you need to ask your self is why were they so willing, even eager, to slaughter so many people and expend so much treasure to prevent a peaceful and legal political separation?

When you answer that question you will have the real cause of the war."

Can you spell out the answer for me?

Why didn't they want to let the southern states be? I realize there's a financial situation at stake, but what was it exactly?

Now folks who are defending the north would say that Fort Sumter was a federal owned fort and Lincoln had the right to defend it and was doing so when the South fired upon them and if the South didn't want a war, they shouldn't have fired.

What would you say to people who make that argument?

Thanks in advance.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject:

“Why didn't they want to let the southern states be?”

Simple economics.

The South had and has the lion’s share of the natural resources. The South was on a per capita basis the wealthiest par of the nation. The South was paying 80% of the tariff (the main source of federal government revenue).

“Fort Sumter was a federal owned fort”

Fort Sumter was owned by the federal government UNTILL South Carolina peacefully and legally withdrew from the union on 20 December 1860. (Anderson occupied Sumter 6 days later). The moment secession was formalized the fort and all other federal instillations became the property of the State of South Carolina. Remember too that at least 80% of the cost of building Sumter had been paid for by the SOUTH.

Even if the fort its self could somehow be considered federal property consider this: What if you built a house and later found that you did not hold legal title to the land you built on? Want to make a guess who would own the house legally? The landowner of course. Also consider the fact that the South sent peace emissaries to Washington and offered to PAY for any and all federal property in their territory (even though they had already paid for at least 80% of it) and even offered to pay their share of the National Debt.

The federal troops who occupied Sumter (6 days AFTER secession remember?) were not only trespassers they were trespassers with HOSTILE intent. They were in fact foreign troops that had illegally seized State property and were engaging in an ACT OF WAR by simply being there. The CS did not fire on Sumter UNTIL Lincoln tried to send reinforcements. The South in fact had shown great restraint in not firing on Sumter for FOUR months!

Look at it this way: What if after the Declaration of Independence there was a strategic military post occupied by British troops in one of the colonies. Let’s say at Ticonderoga New York. What do you think the colonists would have done? Think they would have had a right to do it?

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

[quote="O'Bruadair"]

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

I must say, you guys can take a topic as interesting as Fort Sumter and make it absolutely boring. The whole fun of the Sumter debate doesn't turn around justifications, it actually turns more around the results of the first shots.

The question usually turns around whether the South should've fired those shots. Of course we have the benefit of hindsight and hindsight being 20/20 obviously the answer is no, but its more complex than that!

Now most of us here know that prior to Sumter, there is little impetus shown by the North. On the other side the Upper South still has yet to secede.

Essentially Sumter acts to galvanize the north to war, which of course compels the Upper South to secede when the calls to the governors to raise the militia go out. Pretty dramatic results for a relatively inconsequential battle.

Could it be that this is the most pivotal battle fought where nobody died? (I think somebody dies accidentally)

Ollie439 · Sergeant Joined: 02 May 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Alabama

oh, thhats true, they didn't wanna pay us.

Nick · Sergeant Major Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 51

orfejns · Corporal Joined: 27 Aug 2008 Posts: 3

The Union could not own any part or any building on S.C. territory after the secession. Therefore, it's obvious that the South Carolina army acted against a foreign military unit occupying one of its forts.

The aggressor commander was offered to surrender and leave in peace, but he refused and got what he deserved. Unfortunately the large numbers of the North prevailed at the end.